[Mageia-dev] Proposal of a backporting process

Sun Jun 26 00:16:59 CEST 2011

Le vendredi 24 juin 2011 à 22:39 +0300, Ahmad Samir a écrit :
+> On 24 June 2011 02:09, Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
+> > Hi,
+> >
+> > as said in the thread of firefox 5, and in the meeting of packager
+> > sooner this week, this is the first mail about backports ( on 3 ).
+> >
+> > So here is the proposal of a process, based on the feedback of people,
+> > and the idea of some packagers ( mainly stormi ).
+> >
+> >
+> > - Someone request a backport ( by bugzilla, by madb, by a email, by
+> > taking a packager family in hostage, whatever ). I would prefer use
+> > bugzilla but this may not be very user friendly, or too heavy.
+> >
+> 
+> Would you elaborate on how bugzilla is heavy for a backports request?
+
+It requires a more formal process, requires to fill a proper bug ( thus
+either requesting more experience, or more work from triaging ). 
+
+While bugzilla would work, I think we could have a more streamlined and
+direct way of requesting backport. Maybe a custom template in bugzilla
+would do the trick.
+
+> > - based on feedback ( ie if the package work or if the packager is
+> > confident ), the packager decide to move it to backport for everybody,
+> > using some stuff similar to rpmctl ( the tool we used to move package at
+> > Mandriva ). The tool would also send notifications.
+> >
+> 
+> The packager decides to move it and he has the necessary privileges to
+> do so? or will he have to request someone from another team to move
+> it?
+
+The packager decide to move.
+
+> > This way :
+> > - packages are not sent untested, thus raising confidence in backports
+> 
+> How many times did backports breaks a user's whole installation? 
+
+Not often. But the issue is not if the system is broken beyond repair,
+as it didn't happen, and would surely not happen with the proposed
+policy. But even if system work, people will perceive backport has being
+unreliable if some of them do not work. 
+
+
+> we
+> always say that backports should mainly be cherry picked, but not
+> enabled all the time... so how does installing a new version of e.g.
+> wine break the user's system when he can easily back out that rpm?
+
+I a not sure that most people realize they can revert. Maybe a easier
+interface to do that could be offered ( along maybe with a tool that
+send feedback on why it did downgrade it ? ).
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+
+